Lackey v. Jefferson Energy Corp., Inc.
Decision Date | 24 June 1983 |
Parties | Elizabeth LACKEY, et al. v. JEFFERSON ENERGY CORPORATION, INC. Civ. 3823. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
B. Wayne Randall of Zeanah, Donald & Hust, Tuscaloosa, for appellants.
John W. Clark, Jr., Timothy P. Donahue of Clark & Maddox, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case.
The instant action was instituted against Jefferson Energy Corporation by Elizabeth and Alfred Lackey in connection with the death of their minor son William Paul Lackey. The complaint alleged that William Paul Lackey was killed on September 12, 1981 when he was run over by a front end loader which he was operating in the course of his employment with Jefferson Energy Corporation. The Lackeys further alleged that their son was unmarried at the time of his death and that he left no children surviving him. Damages were sought under the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act, and a count for wrongful death was also included in the complaint. In response thereto, Jefferson Energy Corporation sought dismissal of the action, claiming that it was immune from liability under sections 25-5-52 and 25-5-53, Code 1975. After the trial court dismissed the complaint, the Lackeys timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellants in their briefs raise a frontal attack in two aspects on the statutory scheme of damages provided by the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act. They first argue that sections 25-5-52 and 25-5-53, Code 1975, are unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, sections 13 and 22 of the Alabama Constitution in the case of the job-related death of a minor employee who dies without dependents. They further claim that their action was brought under article 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which became operative in the instant case because relief was barred by article 3 of the Act.
As to the Lackeys' claim that the exclusive scheme of damages provided by the Alabama Workmen's Compensation Act is unconstitutional, section 25-5-52, Code 1975, provides:
"No employee of any employer subject to this article, nor the personal representative, surviving spouse or next of kin of any such employee shall have any right to any other method, form or amount of compensation or damages for any injury or death occasioned by any accident proximately resulting from and while engaged in the actual performance of the duties of his employment and from a cause originating in such employment or determination thereof other than as provided in this article."
Similarly, section 25-5-53, Code 1975, states that "[t]he rights and remedies herein granted to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies of said employee, his personal representative, parent, dependents or next of kin, at common law, by statute or otherwise on account of said injury, loss of service or death." However, the Lackeys argue that these two code sections are constitutionally infirm because they serve to bar the parents or personal representatives of minors who die in work-related accidents and leave no dependents from a recovery on the basis of wrongful death. Other parties similarly situated, they argue, are permitted to bring an action for wrongful death and are not barred from receiving a recovery when the death stems from some cause other than a work-related accident. The Lackeys take the position that such a classification is arbitrary and unfair.
In its decision of Slagle v. Reynolds Metals Co., 344 So.2d 1216 (Ala.1977), our supreme court, when faced with a challenge to the constitutionality of the exclusive scheme of damages provided by the Workmen's Compensation Act, stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dependents of Nosser v. Natchez Jitney Jungle, Inc.
...the employer was held to be immune from claims of the non-dependent parents. The result was the same in Lackey v. Jefferson Energy Corporation, Inc., 439 So.2d 1290 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), cert. den. 1983), and Patterson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 196 F.2d 947 (5th The state of Louisiana has also......
-
Yarchak v. Munford, Inc.
...L.Ed.2d 242 (1981), and Padilla v. Industrial Commission of Colorado, 696 P.2d 273 (Colo.1985). See, also, Lackey v. Jefferson Energy Corp., Inc., 439 So.2d 1290 (Ala.Civ.App.1983) (holding that Slagle v. Parker, supra, foreclosed the argument that § 25-5-52 and -53 are We conclude that the......
-
Champion Intern., Inc. v. Truitt
...so as to allow compensation by a civil action" under Article 2. 361 So.2d at 15. See also, Lackey v. Jefferson Energy Corp., Inc., 439 So.2d 1290, 1291-92 (Ala.Civ.App.1983) (following Holliday and rejecting the same The Truitts attempt to distinguish Holliday and Lackey, claiming that reli......
-
Hughes v. Decatur General Hosp.
...that legislative grant of immunity is not violative of due process or equal protection principles. See also Lackey v. Jefferson Energy Corp., 439 So.2d 1290 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), and Ala.Code 1975, § In Holliday v. C.T. Thackston Sand & Gravel Co., 361 So.2d 13 (Ala.Civ.App.1978), the adminis......